Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑28 Feb 2020, 11:37
Foreman was nowhere near the fighter when he heavier than when he was lighter. Do you really think he blows out Norton and Frazier during the time he weighed 250 plus? He needed the judges to bail him out against Axel Schulz. Struggled in several other fights as well.
I think he paced himself better in his comeback and that extra weight made him stronger. To be fair his comeback was in 1987 and he fought Holyfield in 1991. He was pretty inactive after that and fought Schulz in 1995 by which time he was 46
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 28 Feb 2020, 12:15
by Seamus
Old Foreman was smarter.
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 28 Feb 2020, 13:29
by Onetimeonly
He was relaxed.
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 28 Feb 2020, 15:08
by Ambling Alp II
The old, fat Foreman had no choice but to fight at a slow pace. He was physically was incapable of throwing punches anywhere near the rate that he once did. It was not because he was smart; he literally had no choice.
People seem to have a nostalgic point of view when think of the Foreman after the comeback. Yes for his age he did well. But to think he was nowhere near as good as when he younger and in shape is ridiculous.
The older Foreman was very slow. He was very easy to hit. He didn't have the power he once did. If he hurt a guy, he often could not pull the trigger again to put the guy away.
He barely scraped by Alex Stewart and Lou Savarese. He got outboxed by Tommy Morrison. He looked horrible against Alex Schulz, and probably only won about 4 rounds.
He should have got the decision against Briggs but he didn't exactly dominate him and was not impressive.
He was losing badly to Moorer before he knocked him out.
None of these guys were great fighters.
The younger Foreman never would have struggled at all with any of these guys. He blew out guys light years better.
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 28 Feb 2020, 15:20
by oogiebe
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑28 Feb 2020, 11:37
Foreman was nowhere near the fighter when he heavier than when he was lighter. Do you really think he blows out Norton and Frazier during the time he weighed 250 plus? He needed the judges to bail him out against Axel Schulz. Struggled in several other fights as well.
He was a better boxer. Very relaxed and used his tools and assets way better than young George. Forget the latter stage of the comeback. He was done a couple of years before.
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 28 Feb 2020, 15:25
by Onetimeonly
I think old George would have a good chance to beat young George, but I'll take the young version in most any mythical match up.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑28 Feb 2020, 11:37
Foreman was nowhere near the fighter when he heavier than when he was lighter. Do you really think he blows out Norton and Frazier during the time he weighed 250 plus? He needed the judges to bail him out against Axel Schulz. Struggled in several other fights as well.
He was a better boxer. Very relaxed and used his tools and assets way better than young George. Forget the latter stage of the comeback. He was done a couple of years before.
Forget the latter stage of the comeback? So what are talking about here, from the Holyfield fight to the Moorer fight?
The younger Foreman was more skillful than people think. This video regarding the first Frazier fight is interesting:
People often seem to think that all the younger and in shape Foreman did was throw bombs. There was more to it than that.
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 28 Feb 2020, 16:44
by margaret thatcher
Did the same guy make that Marciano defensive skillzzzz video too
oogiebe wrote: ↑28 Feb 2020, 15:20
He was a better boxer. Very relaxed and used his tools and assets way better than young George. Forget the latter stage of the comeback. He was done a couple of years before.
Forget the latter stage of the comeback? So what are talking about here, from the Holyfield fight to the Moorer fight?
The younger Foreman was more skillful than people think. This video regarding the first Frazier fight is interesting:
People often seem to think that all the younger and in shape Foreman did was throw bombs. There was more to it than that.
I never said younger Foreman didn't have skills. Older George was a better boxer. I'm talking about inception of comeback through Holy. I think he aged very quickly after that.
oogiebe wrote: ↑28 Feb 2020, 15:20
He was a better boxer. Very relaxed and used his tools and assets way better than young George. Forget the latter stage of the comeback. He was done a couple of years before.
Forget the latter stage of the comeback? So what are talking about here, from the Holyfield fight to the Moorer fight?
I think Foreman was pretty much at his comeback peak for the Holyfield fight, let’s not forget he was 42 then. He was less than two months away from his 49th birthday when he lost to Briggs
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 29 Feb 2020, 13:33
by BroughtonRulesRefuge
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑28 Feb 2020, 15:08
The old, fat Foreman had no choice but to fight at a slow pace. He was physically was incapable of throwing punches anywhere near the rate that he once did. It was not because he was smart; he literally had no choice.
People seem to have a nostalgic point of view when think of the Foreman after the comeback. Yes for his age he did well. But to think he was nowhere near as good as when he younger and in shape is ridiculous.
The older Foreman was very slow. He was very easy to hit. He didn't have the power he once did. If he hurt a guy, he often could not pull the trigger again to put the guy away.
He barely scraped by Alex Stewart and Lou Savarese. He got outboxed by Tommy Morrison. He looked horrible against Alex Schulz, and probably only won about 4 rounds.
He should have got the decision against Briggs but he didn't exactly dominate him and was not impressive.
He was losing badly to Moorer before he knocked him out.
None of these guys were great fighters.
The younger Foreman never would have struggled at all with any of these guys. He blew out guys light years better.
- Musta rolled out of the stupid side of the bed to mess yourself so badly. That's Kalan cackling in the background
Working backwards: 76-5, 68 KO, 84 KO %, and he has no power?
Up to Moorer during his comeback, 30 fights, 26 by KO = 87 KO%, and he has no power? He clearly is in the backing off phase of his career at that point.
The Schultz fight demonstrates he's having to deal with blatant crooks. Moreover, all Schulz did was run from a 47 year old and potshot popcorn, apparently your favorite kind of fighter.
You've obviously too untutored to understand that by early to late 40s George was too slow afoot now to chase down fighters, moreover he was never fasthanded, but timing beats speed, and he always had it in spades, hence the book on him said RUN like a scalded chicken. Tommy Morrison at least busted him up some between running to win a fair decision, but he could've been DQed for turning his back on George numerous x. Your Poster Boy Mr. Field had to desperately hang on to him for the championship rounds to keep from getting KOed. He had a perfect heavyweight record of 8-0, 8 KO in his first 3 years as a heavyweight, yet could only manage 8 KOs over the next 20 years after George emasculated him.
Them young studs the Monday after the Briggs fight showed up at work still spitting fire and brimstone like I'd never seen over the Briggs decision. Briggs would finish as holder of the 1st round KO record, but for that fight ran like a scalded chicken once he tasted the George power and finished with rope burns on his back, yet in his next fight went toe to toe vs Lewis to have him in a world of trouble before running out of steam. Musta fergot the national controversy that flooded John McCain's office that launched an investigation. Jersey commish Larry Hazard admitted he made a mistake putting in two rookie judges.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑28 Feb 2020, 15:08
The old, fat Foreman had no choice but to fight at a slow pace. He was physically was incapable of throwing punches anywhere near the rate that he once did. It was not because he was smart; he literally had no choice.
People seem to have a nostalgic point of view when think of the Foreman after the comeback. Yes for his age he did well. But to think he was nowhere near as good as when he younger and in shape is ridiculous.
The older Foreman was very slow. He was very easy to hit. He didn't have the power he once did. If he hurt a guy, he often could not pull the trigger again to put the guy away.
He barely scraped by Alex Stewart and Lou Savarese. He got outboxed by Tommy Morrison. He looked horrible against Alex Schulz, and probably only won about 4 rounds.
He should have got the decision against Briggs but he didn't exactly dominate him and was not impressive.
He was losing badly to Moorer before he knocked him out.
None of these guys were great fighters.
The younger Foreman never would have struggled at all with any of these guys. He blew out guys light years better.
- Musta rolled out of the stupid side of the bed to mess yourself so badly. That's Kalan cackling in the background
Working backwards: 76-5, 68 KO, 84 KO %, and he has no power?
Up to Moorer during his comeback, 30 fights, 26 by KO = 87 KO%, and he has no power? He clearly is in the backing off phase of his career at that point.
The Schultz fight demonstrates he's having to deal with blatant crooks. Moreover, all Schulz did was run from a 47 year old and potshot popcorn, apparently your favorite kind of fighter.
You've obviously too untutored to understand that by early to late 40s George was too slow afoot now to chase down fighters, moreover he was never fasthanded, but timing beats speed, and he always had it in spades, hence the book on him said RUN like a scalded chicken. Tommy Morrison at least busted him up some between running to win a fair decision, but he could've been DQed for turning his back on George numerous x. Your Poster Boy Mr. Field had to desperately hang on to him for the championship rounds to keep from getting KOed. He had a perfect heavyweight record of 8-0, 8 KO in his first 3 years as a heavyweight, yet could only manage 8 KOs over the next 20 years after George emasculated him.
Them young studs the Monday after the Briggs fight showed up at work still spitting fire and brimstone like I'd never seen over the Briggs decision. Briggs would finish as holder of the 1st round KO record, but for that fight ran like a scalded chicken once he tasted the George power and finished with rope burns on his back, yet in his next fight went toe to toe vs Lewis to have him in a world of trouble before running out of steam. Musta fergot the national controversy that flooded John McCain's office that launched an investigation. Jersey commish Larry Hazard admitted he made a mistake putting in two rookie judges.
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:49
Should light heavyweights and super middleweights be having a go at heavy then, without adding any size? Maybe it's really them with the size advantage over the big bois. Perhaps John Ryder or Bivol is the one to beat Fury.
I thought I read on here that retired middleweight Frank ' The Terminator' Grant battered Fury in the gym.
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑24 Feb 2020, 16:49
Should light heavyweights and super middleweights be having a go at heavy then, without adding any size? Maybe it's really them with the size advantage over the big bois. Perhaps John Ryder or Bivol is the one to beat Fury.
I thought I read on here that retired middleweight Frank ' The Terminator' Grant battered Fury in the gym.
Thats a bit different when there's a gulf in ability and we are talking about sparring. Being big means nothing if you can't box or have limited ability and the smaller guy is more skilled and fit. It was allegedly Tyson Furys dad too, not Tyson.
Would someone from a much smaller weight stand a chance against Tyson Fury, I think thats the point he was getting at.
Forget the latter stage of the comeback? So what are talking about here, from the Holyfield fight to the Moorer fight?
The younger Foreman was more skillful than people think. This video regarding the first Frazier fight is interesting:
People often seem to think that all the younger and in shape Foreman did was throw bombs. There was more to it than that.
I never said younger Foreman didn't have skills. Older George was a better boxer. I'm talking about inception of comeback through Holy. I think he aged very quickly after that.
OK, well I guess I have a few questions then.
First, when you "boxer" do you mean he had better "scientific" boxing skills? As in better jab, head movement, foot movement, throwing combinations, etc.
Or do you mean it literally when you say boxer, as simply who was better, counting power, stamina, chin, everything.
Also if we are really just going to the Holyfield fight, then who is the best fighter that Foreman beat during his comeback?
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 01 Mar 2020, 16:07
by Roco
Old Foreman was more patient but that was probably because he could no longer sustain attacks like his younger self. Old Foreman was worse than young Foreman in every way
oogiebe wrote: ↑28 Feb 2020, 16:50
I never said younger Foreman didn't have skills. Older George was a better boxer. I'm talking about inception of comeback through Holy. I think he aged very quickly after that.
OK, well I guess I have a few questions then.
First, when you "boxer" do you mean he had better "scientific" boxing skills? As in better jab, head movement, foot movement, throwing combinations, etc.
Or do you mean it literally when you say boxer, as simply who was better, counting power, stamina, chin, everything.
Also if we are really just going to the Holyfield fight, then who is the best fighter that Foreman beat during his comeback?
thought this was obvious. Young george depended on brute force and punching power for the most part. Exceptions included the first and second Frazier fights where he didn't just go in winging, he used boxing skills to setup his power shots. Parrying; his jab; punching from various angles and keepoing his punches tight, etc. Old george used more ring guile; patience; relaxed; used his jab to setup his right; finished combinations with his left hook (see Rodriguez); showed angles; deception (see cooney). Young george was a better fighter mostly because of his youth and strength, but Old George was the better boxer.
Rodriguez; Cooney; and Moorer were his best wins on his comeback. But...I'm not comparing his young vs old resumes. That would be ridiculous.
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 02 Mar 2020, 11:44
by Ambling Alp II
I think that is the what some people think, but old George being a better boxer is a an exaggeration.
Part of boxing is defense. Old George was easy to hit. Very easy to hit.
As to why I was asking who the best fighter that he beat:
How can we tell he was so much better if his competition was so pathetic? Do you realize Adilson Rodrigues was the only guy that he beat that was even ranked?
His "boxing skills" looked better because he was fighting tomato cans.
His "boxing skills" didn't look impressive when he finally fought Holyfield, his only real opponent during the time period you are talking about.
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 02 Mar 2020, 15:43
by oogiebe
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Mar 2020, 11:44
I think that is the what some people think, but old George being a better boxer is a an exaggeration.
Part of boxing is defense. Old George was easy to hit. Very easy to hit.
As to why I was asking who the best fighter that he beat:
How can we tell he was so much better if his competition was so pathetic? Do you realize Adilson Rodrigues was the only guy that he beat that was even ranked?
His "boxing skills" looked better because he was fighting tomato cans.
His "boxing skills" didn't look impressive when he finally fought Holyfield, his only real opponent during the time period you are talking about.
Sorry mate. I simply disagree.
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 02 Mar 2020, 16:50
by Ambling Alp II
That's fine. It would be boring if we all agreed all of the time.
Re: Extra weight at HW debate
Posted: 02 Mar 2020, 18:06
by oogiebe
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Mar 2020, 16:50
That's fine. It would be boring if we all agreed all of the time.
Yup. ANd it's always nice to disagree without name calling!
OK, well I guess I have a few questions then.
First, when you "boxer" do you mean he had better "scientific" boxing skills? As in better jab, head movement, foot movement, throwing combinations, etc.
Or do you mean it literally when you say boxer, as simply who was better, counting power, stamina, chin, everything.
Also if we are really just going to the Holyfield fight, then who is the best fighter that Foreman beat during his comeback?
thought this was obvious. Young george depended on brute force and punching power for the most part. Exceptions included the first and second Frazier fights where he didn't just go in winging, he used boxing skills to setup his power shots. Parrying; his jab; punching from various angles and keepoing his punches tight, etc. Old george used more ring guile; patience; relaxed; used his jab to setup his right; finished combinations with his left hook (see Rodriguez); showed angles; deception (see cooney). Young george was a better fighter mostly because of his youth and strength, but Old George was the better boxer.
Rodriguez; Cooney; and Moorer were his best wins on his comeback. But...I'm not comparing his young vs old resumes. That would be ridiculous.
I'll straighten you both out. Foreman kinda had 3 careers. 1) 1969-1974 when he came up, won, and lost the title. 2)
The Gil Clancy years 1975-77, and 3) his comeback starting 10 years later.
The first phase he relied on raw power and an excellent lamppost of a jab. He used it well against Norton and Frazier. In the Norton fight he really peaked and his jab set it up.
After his meltdown against Ali, Gil Clancy tried to teach Foreman to rely on boxing. This had mixed results. Foeman-Lyle is known as a slugfest and it certainly was starting in the 4th round, but if you watch it, you see that Foreman really tried to box. GF was an easy target for Ron Lyle. I agree with ambling alp here, Foreman had lousy defense. Even guys like Dino Dennis could hit Foreman. Of course that didn't matter. Foreman's attempt to outbox Jimmy Young had even worse results.
In his 3rd comeback, he did learn patience and he had a new style, but let's face it, almost all his opponents weren't very good other than Holyfield.
What if he had this patience and new style all along? I believe in retrospect (and I was a HUGE Fan) that even at his best he couldn't beat a Jimmy Young, Ali, or Larry Holmes when they were at their best. Tyson? Perhaps/ Styles make fights.
oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Mar 2020, 17:37
thought this was obvious. Young george depended on brute force and punching power for the most part. Exceptions included the first and second Frazier fights where he didn't just go in winging, he used boxing skills to setup his power shots. Parrying; his jab; punching from various angles and keepoing his punches tight, etc. Old george used more ring guile; patience; relaxed; used his jab to setup his right; finished combinations with his left hook (see Rodriguez); showed angles; deception (see cooney). Young george was a better fighter mostly because of his youth and strength, but Old George was the better boxer.
Rodriguez; Cooney; and Moorer were his best wins on his comeback. But...I'm not comparing his young vs old resumes. That would be ridiculous.
I'll straighten you both out. Foreman kinda had 3 careers. 1) 1969-1974 when he came up, won, and lost the title. 2)
The Gil Clancy years 1975-77, and 3) his comeback starting 10 years later.
The first phase he relied on raw power and an excellent lamppost of a jab. He used it well against Norton and Frazier. In the Norton fight he really peaked and his jab set it up.
After his meltdown against Ali, Gil Clancy tried to teach Foreman to rely on boxing. This had mixed results. Foeman-Lyle is known as a slugfest and it certainly was starting in the 4th round, but if you watch it, you see that Foreman really tried to box. GF was an easy target for Ron Lyle. I agree with ambling alp here, Foreman had lousy defense. Even guys like Dino Dennis could hit Foreman. Of course that didn't matter. Foreman's attempt to outbox Jimmy Young had even worse results.
In his 3rd comeback, he did learn patience and he had a new style, but let's face it, almost all his opponents weren't very good other than Holyfield.
What if he had this patience and new style all along? I believe in retrospect (and I was a HUGE Fan) that even at his best he couldn't beat a Jimmy Young, Ali, or Larry Holmes when they were at their best. Tyson? Perhaps/ Styles make fights.
I don't buy that. Also, George was a master at cutting off the ring when he was in the right head. There is no one I"d say George couldn't have beaten.
Foreman kinda had 3 careers. 1) 1969-1974 when he came up, won, and lost the title. 2)